nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Item level restriction
Modifying restrictions You may want to add that you can find and possible mod the values with the itemvalue.2da Kenquinn 23:20, November 10, 2010 (UTC) * To whom is this addressed, and why do you not want to do it? --The Krit 04:58, November 11, 2010 (UTC) :* Grumble, grumble I don't like editing wikis, but I will do it. --Kenquinn 05:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC) ::* Technically, you edited a wiki when you created this talk page. ;) I guess it comes down to what you like less -- editing a wiki or having information missing until someone else gets around to addressing your concern. (If you wait long enough, I'll likely incorporate such things into articles, but it could take a while depending on my schedule.) --The Krit 19:48, November 12, 2010 (UTC) "Fix" Item level restrictions set a maximum item value that can be used by characters of a particular level. This includes characters of the maximum level. A customization that lifts this restriction for PCs of maximum level is not a fix, as this aspect of the game is working as intended. (This setting is not intended for use on uber servers, as the point of the setting is to prevent the use of uber items.) --The Krit 18:45, November 28, 2010 (UTC) *Thats your understanding of ILR and I don't agree with that ;). Since item cost is multiplied, reach 41+ is quite easy. Maybe that something like uber servers wasn't intended at all, maybe that there was intended to reach level 41+ by player character, how you can know? I just know, that if you want to make a little better item for 40s, you can't give there too much properties, cause even if it would be +2 fort +2ref and +2 to will, it will affect the final cost greatly. ShaDoOoW 08:01, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :* Where in "maximum item value that can be used by characters of a particular level" is there any implication of an exception for characters of the highest level? You are inventing rules to make the game play the way ShaDoOoW would like the game to play. I've got news for you: everyone is entitled to their preferred customizations of the game, but those preferences do not mean the game Bioware designed is broken. (It does not mean that those customizations are bad, but at the same time they are customizations, not fixes.) The ILR setting includes a maximum item value that can be used by PCs of the highest level, just as it includes a maximum item value that can be used by PCs of the lowest level. This has been the case from the time the original game was released. (In my copy of the original manual, there is a table that clearly states that level 20 PCs -- the highest level available at the time -- cannot use items with a value greater than 130,000gp. The highest level PCs are intentionally included in item level restrictions.) That is how the setting works. You can change it if you do not like it, but you are not fixing it, as it is not broken. As for your arguments: ::# Being able to easily create items that require level 41+ is irrelevant. All that means is that builders have lots of choices when designing items, not that all (or even several) of those choices are intended to be used at once. Being told that your custom item requires level 41+ is basically being told that your item is too powerful for the game balance enforced by ILR. ::# How do I know that uber servers were not intended? Because BioWare made the rules and the power level of their campaigns match. That means the rules are intended to be modified by servers with a higher power level, just as they should be modified by servers with a lower power level. It is impossible to have rules that suit all servers, and no reason for BioWare to establish rules for any setting other than that of their campaigns. ::# How do I know that PCs were not intended to each level 41+? Because the level cap is 40. The same thing applied before HotU was released -- PCs were intended to only go to level 20, even though it was easy to create items that required level 21+. When the level cap was raised, more powerful item properties were added to the core game to suit the higher level PCs. The ability to create items beyond the scope of ILR has never implied that ILR is compatible with designing arbitrarily valuable items. ::# You added properties to an item, and the required level went up. So what? That is what is supposed to happen. It does not matter if you are dealing with level 40 or level 4 -- adding saving throw bonuses makes the item more powerful, so an increase in the required level is to be expected. If the additions are little, then you can expect the increase in required level to be little, but not non-existent. If you start with a level 40 item and add saving throw bonuses, the result should require level 41 or more. If you want more powerful items available at level 40 (or any other level), then you are designing a module with a higher power level than base NWN. If you want to use ILR in this higher-power module, then be glad that BioWare allows you to relax ILR or reduce the value of item properties. These customizations are part of what makes NWN so flexible. Not "fixes", but "customizations". Learn the difference. :: You do not have to like the ILR rules, and you can modify them to suit your preferences, but that does not amount to fixing anything. --The Krit 19:17, November 29, 2010 (UTC) ::* Well I know you know everything. But you are completely off this time. I however know, that you never admit it until someone else says his opinion so EOL from me on this topic unless someone else joins the argue. 07:58, November 30, 2010 (UTC) ::* So if I understand you and your understanding of ILR correctly. If I as a builder make an item with item restriction 41 or more, it means, that I'm bad builder because such item should not appear in game with ILR. Then why there is possible to reach up to level 60 with the ILR requirements, when it would be enough to have 41 "too uber, not for you server dude, make a weaker" or there wouldn't have to be that level restriction even. There could be writtent something like impossible to equip. Because it goes up to lvl 60, it would suggested it was intended for NPC's too who can reach this level (they can 180 actually because they can have three classes with lvl 60). But it does not, NPCs can wear any item builder give him at any level. My opinion is that if the builder want to make more powerfull item, whether uber or normal server, ILR should let him. ShaDoOoW 08:45, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :::* You do not understand, although that might be because you have shown a tendency in the past to see only extremes. There are both more conditions and a weaker conclusion compared to what you said. If a builder makes an item restricted to level 41 or more and intends the item to be used by player characters and intends the module to be played with item level restrictions turned on, then the builder made a mistake. (Making a mistake only equates to being a bad builder in your black-and-white world where the only possibilities are "bad" and "perfect". They are not the same in the real world.) It is true, however, that such an item should not appear in a game with ILR, much the same way a +10 longsword should not appear in a low-magic, low-level module. The issue is not what you can get away with, but sticking to the balance you are designing your module around (in the first case, the balance is defined by ILR, and in the second, by "low-magic"). :::: ILR is defined up to level 60 presumably to accommodate NPCs. Yes, this implies that it was intended for NPCs. The same implication is made by the Toolset message "WARNING: The game may unequip items from this creature if they do not possess the appropriate feats or are not of sufficient level." (underlining added). What's your point? :::: Your opinion is that ILR should not limit top-level PCs, and that is fine. However, the game according to ShaDoOoW is not standard NWN, and the game is not broken just because it deviates from what you personally want. Get over yourself. --The Krit 17:52, November 30, 2010 (UTC) Linking to customizations If we keep the link to someone's customization of ILR, how do we prevent the wiki from being overloaded with links to custom content? The Vault has over 7,000 entries in the hak pak section alone. Do we link to them all, making it harder for people to find information about standard NWN? --The Krit 18:01, November 30, 2010 (UTC) : I don't know for certain what would be the best overall policy for the Wiki, but there are lots of useful links to vault pages that address aspects of the as-released game that many players consider to be shortcomings. I'd hate to see most of those go. One could hope to draw a line between "fixes" and "customizations", but that determination is ultimately scarcely less subjective than a broader determination of utility. On the other hand, this case seems to be sort of a customization meeting a pretty narrow need. Obviously, there are reasons to believe Bioware's ILR settings are non-optimal (e.g. Asheera's Amulet, deliberately given to PCs near the end of the OC, is a level 19 item unusable by the vast majority of PCs getting to that point in the game). But, 1) no one playing Bioware's campaigns will need this customization, since none of them go to level 40; 2) anyone running a PW probably should know how to change ILR on his own; and 3) a mod player should either use the 2DA included with the mod (or its HAKs) or should just disable ILR in the nwnplayer.ini file*. I suppose a maker of high-level mods may be interested in an example of altering the ILR limits, but anyone who figures out that they are set in itemvalues.2da (i.e. anyone who gets to this page) should be able to figure out how to change them. : Sorry my comments aren't very definitive. I am hedging between "This doesn't address something I consider a shortcoming and it isn't a customization I would find useful" and "I can imagine someone looking at the article wanting to know how to turn off ILR just for level 40+ characters". : (* BTW, I've added a note and link to the Wiki's nwnplayer.ini article ) - MrZork 20:15, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :* Just how many such links does NWNWiki have at this point? (I am not coming up with many off the top of my head, but that could just be memory failure.) :: :: I do not consider the distinction between "fix" and "customization" to be all that subjective -- fixes address things that are broken, while customizations change things that are not broken. If BioWare said something should work a certain way, then it should work that way; if BioWare made no definitive statement, then the something is not broken as long as it is functional (in the standard, non-customized game), maybe with some sort of consistency criteria thrown in. If in doubt, give BioWare the benefit and assume it is not broken. :: :: The criteria of meeting a wide or narrow need may have merit, even though it can be rather subjective at times. :: :: PS Asheera's Amulet worked fine in the early patches of the game, as PCs would get to level 20 by the end of the campaign. At some point, the XP output of the campaign was lowered, and at roughly the same time BioWare turned off ILR by default in single-player. :: :: PPS You missed the setting for single player. I'd fix it now, but my time is running short. :: --The Krit 21:14, November 30, 2010 (UTC) ::: Thanks for the note on the nwnplayer.ini link. I have updated it. ::: I actually don't know how many links to the vault are here. I did searches (both on Google with a site restriction and here), but they missed at least a couple links that are definitely here. Anyway, perhaps "lots" isn't an accurate characterization. :) It seems like I have run across several and I doubt I have seen even a tenth of the pages on the Wiki, but maybe I have encountered a disproportionate fraction of the links. ::: We could discuss how best to differentiate "fix" from "customization", but deciding that won't necessarily provide a bright-line test for determining the appropriateness of links in Wiki articles. After all, there are articles (with links) on the CEP, Grimoire, etc. that are clearly customizations. I think those links are useful to people reading the Wiki, without even getting into links that address shortcomings in the game. ::: I suppose that one could differentiate between articles focused on customizations (like the CEP articles) and articles focused on standard game resources and say that links to customizations of the latter aren't appropriate for their articles. E.g. a link to a non-Bioware spells.2da might be fine for an article on Grimoire spells, but not for an override to the standard NWN spells. Unless it's a "fix"... ;-) MrZork 00:14, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::* Well from The Krits definition, none of the fixes I have so far gathered for my Community Patch would be fix actually hehe. Like an Arcane Archer's arrows can't be fired under silence effect. Therefore I think, that this definion is wrong. ShaDoOoW 16:56, December 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::* Typical response from ShaDoOoW: "My project is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong." I am done dealing with this one for now. --The Krit 18:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::* Nope I said, that your definition exludes everything I have put into my project as "fix" to be actual fix. Because as long as its works, its not broken therefore cannot be fixed. Using this idea, most fixes in last patches was not fixes but modifications. I mentioned AA's arrows because I think this is the most clear example of my point. It is not broken, but I and like ten other peoples believe its wrong and incorrect. ShaDoOoW 19:32, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::* Sure, if the article is about customizations, then links related to that customization could be appropriate. I think in that setting, you would have to think of the subject of the article as the base upon which to decide if something is a fix or customization. :::: I did come across a link that does not fit nicely into the above -- healer's kit includes a link to restore the original icon. It's not a fix, but then again when BioWare changed the icon, it was not to fix anything either. I could accept links to content originating with BioWare alongside links to fixes. --The Krit 18:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::* That was sort of the metric I was going for, one where the principal content of the article determined the appropriateness of customization links. ::::: Of course, a fix-only rule for links that deal with game shortcomings may still be a bit narrow, by the definition you've proposed for fixes. As a hypothetical example (because no such thing is posted, AFAIK), suppose someone posted an override that "fixed" the undocumented UMD scroll check behavior where non-wizard/sorcerer casters have their scroll-using ability nerfed because they have a rank in UMD. We know that BW decided the current scheme was okay, so a change to it isn't a "fix" in that sense. But, it really is an insensible system wherein a high-level cleric takes a class with a rank in UMD and suddenly finds he can't use a scroll of Bless. And, anyone playing a (cleric|druid|ranger|paladin) / (bard|rogue|assassin) would probably be happy to see a link to the override next to the Wiki note about the odd default behavior. To my thinking, that link would be helpful to Wiki readers and appropriate, even though it might be classified as a non-fix customization. I understand that allowing such links makes determining a bright-line test more difficult, but I think the benefit to the usefulness of the Wiki article outweighs the administrative ease in applying a simpler metric. - MrZork 21:20, December 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::* Such a link might be helpful, but I would be wary of adding that link without some way to avoid going down the old slippery slope leading to adding thousands of links to custom content. (After all, very few people create custom content that they do not think is an improvement everyone should consider, if not love.) I suppose it could be handled on a case-by-case basis with some guidelines as to filling a generally-recognized shortcoming of general interest, but I would prefer something less subjective. (Personally, I would find a suggestion from someone other than the author to be of value, but that is easily faked and still not definitive even if authentic.) Probably, it should also be clear that exceptions are exceptions, not something to be expected. I just don't know a better way to handle this while maintaining (for readers) accessibility to the basic information and without sacrificing (for contributors) the time that could be used to flesh out the remaining information about the standard game. --The Krit 23:15, December 1, 2010 (UTC) * So the overall issue is still tricky. :( However, might we come to a consensus that, if we had some guidelines for which enhancements to link to, they would likely not include something with such limited usefulness as an override to turn off ILR at just level 40? So perhaps the link should be removed from this article on the grounds that it adds more clutter than clarity? --The Krit 18:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC) :* WTF? Define limited usefullness. Whats so usefull on fact that you can not wear items with ILR 41+? If builder decide to create some like that, and there are none default, he probably knows what he doing and the item should be useable. Anyway, do what you wanna do, I don't care about that link. Will probably start new discussion on your talk page because there is only one issue what I can see and thats you and your guidelines which you think are always right and everyone must follow them. ShaDoOoW 16:37, December 9, 2010 (UTC) ::* I see a moment of reasonableness in that tirade, so I'll address it then go back to ignoring you. The usefulness of not being able to wear (or use) level 41+ items is that it advises builders to not make such things. The Toolset allows a builder to do many things that would not be good for play balance (e.g. an item that grants every immunity in the game), and the ILR 40 limit draws a line to tell builders when they have gone too far. --The Krit 03:13, December 18, 2010 (UTC) Default ILR values unbalanced Yes it is. The most clear example of it is the weapon enhancement bonus. The values are so high, that with ILR on at lower levels most weapons are unusable. If default unmodified ILR is ON, then in both low and high magic environment, you fight wíth mundane weapon till epic levels. The best weapon is that having NO enhancement bonus, but having any damage bonus, because you can then boost this weapon via spell to have the enhancement without affecting the required level. A weapon +1 with 1d6 addition damage is under ILR better than any +3 weapon with the same bonus because you could use such weapon around level 12, while with greater magic weapon spell from level 9 cleric/wizard you can have the same about 3 levels earlier. Not mentioning that the scroll of GMW will add +5 enhancement bonus and you need only 1 level of bard/cleric/wiz/sorc/paladin to be able to cast it. Two specific examples, two servers with default ILR ON I played: low magic environment - you play with mundane equipment till level 9, dex builds have hard times there because they are more dependant on good equipment (while halfplate+tower shield gives level 1 character 10-11 ac, but dex characters gets only 3-5 from dexterity and 2-3 from shield total 5-8). As far as weapon concerned, there is spell change that only one weapon-boost can be cast at once, so players seeks for weapon that has no enhancement bonus while having any damage bonus. Then they use GMW and get twice as good weapon that is best for their current level that ILR allows. high magic environment - this one have socketting system, so player start with socketed mundane weapon +0 with 3 slots, and they progressively adds better and better gems that gives bonus damage, they do not care about enhancement because, GMW scrolls are easily to attain, or they have it as their own spell boost. Until level 11 they fight with mundane armor-gear, at level 11 they get +5 fullplate, tower shield, haste boots, +5 ac cloak, +5 ac amulet and 2x lesser ring of power (+1 regen) and they keep fine with this until level 30. Few other remarks: * saving throws cost/ILR is significantly larger than eg. ability bonus of the same power * there is almost no way to make items for level 1-2 players, as most item properties of power +1 needs at least level 2-3 * ILR 41+ discussed above :) Therefore I don't think if anyone should take the ILR as guideline in building an items. The default values seems to me smacked in haste without thorought thought. Thats why several custo content groups like PRC and CEP added decrease/increase value item property. --ShaDoOoW 19:26, February 3, 2011 (UTC)